Thursday, September 11, 2008

DEBATE VIDEO: Hulshof vs. Nixon on Ethics, Campaign Finance



The Columbia Tribune's Terry Ganey asked the question that evoked the most spirited back-and-forth between Jay Nixon and Kenny Hulshof. It also sparked a separate debate about ethics and campaign finance reform. WATCH the clip above to here Ganey ask what each would do about the open-records lawsuit hovering over Gov. Matt Blunt's administration.

The debate over Gov. Matt Blunt and ethics lead Nixon to accuse Hulshof of "Washington doublespeak" on the issue of campaign finance reform. Nixon supports limits, Hulshof said he believes a system without limits is better than the old system because it lacked transparency. CHECK OUT the campaign finance debate ABOVE.


***POST-DEBATE: Nixon Campaign Calls Hulshof a Hypocrite . . . Hulshof wants to eliminate "committee pass-throughs," but has continued to accept $150,000 in those types of contributions over the past few weeks, charges MoDem Part spokesperson Zac Wright. He then points to a statement by Hulshof spokesperson Scott Baker, defending these committee contributions . . . "My question would be, why not? If a group of citizens, in this case a committee, decides they want to give to a candidate, why shouldn't they,?" Baker said.

RIGHT BACK AT YOU . . . Hulshof Camp Says Nixon's a Hypocrite . . . They point to several fines Nixon has been forced to pay for "over the limit expenditures and donations." Team Hulshof also notes a June 1997 Post-Dispatch editorial . . . according to the piece, Nixon held a fundraiser where donors gave more than the federal legal limit. The excess money would be later tallied for a Campaign Committee. "Apparently, Mr. Nixon's advocacy of reform, doesn't require that his actions be consistent with his beliefs," wrote the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

1 comment:

CharityAngel said...

I think that this article lacks a great deal of information. The debate had 2 more candidates in it besides the two clowns that don't sounds all the different to me. It was a breath of fresh air to hear the other two, and I hope that I see some fair reporting here locally about them and their positions. I don't want to hear or read any of these nit pick articles about Nixon and Hulshof insulting someone or other when there are real issues that are being discussed. I hope that you will cover ALL candidates and let Missourians really hear what options they have. I will not vote for either of the two, and I have told you that myself. I am a Republican, a Constitutional Republican, and there is no way that those two could ever represent me, because they do not represent the people. All I hear from them is spend spend or tax tax when they say what they are going to do to help us here. We cannot have either. The economy cannot support either, and bringing in more Federal money is a mistake, there is always strings attached and liberty limited when you let the federal into the state. We need someone that will protect our sovereignty as a state and not bring more of Washington here, or in Nixon's case make us more of a Socialist state. Socialism is robbery. To take from people and redistribute is wrong! They need to be free to give to the programs of their choice to help their neighbors. Less government, a small government, that needs to be in the state as well as Federally. Me, and people like me just want to live their lives and are tired of the encroachments. I could go on about those, but I will save that for other comments on other blogs.